>> thank you for that excellent presentation triggered -- excellent presentation triggered quite a lot to address. i want to address the discussion at the end of this, but i have some questions i would like to address up front. we do not necessarily need policy credits to apply to residential because this does not apply. it says under affordable housing you said at 20 units or less it does not apply. if they were in excess of 20

units, would it apply? >> the sustainability program goes to apply to residential uses. however, it contains a program that would allow for reduce sed fee. it simply does not apply to residential at all. >> i got it. that kind of alleviates quite a few of the questions during your -- right a few of the questions. if someone has an empty lot, would it apply or just depend on manilthe approved use democratsn

would not mean an empty lot, because that would mean you are building something new. it is more when you have an existing office building, and it has been vacant for five years, but is a principle latally usedr office. because it has been inactive for six years, whoever to go for would have to pay. good with this change there is no time frame, because that is the principle is permitted to use. if it was something that had been built on a conditional use so it done been vacant for four years and someone wanted to do a conditional use, because the

planning code said after three years it is considered abandoned, then it would apply at the end of the fourth year. goodoes that make sense and? >> who performed the nexus study? on one of the conclusions and was at the increase did not keep up with the real impact, the cost of the real impact. who performed it? >> it was a joint-venture with urban economics. good >> do we have a rough take on what the actual increase in dollar terms is and what they

would be if they did not implement these changes? >> it is about 4%. >> it would increase our tax intake by about 4%? >> i am not sure i understand. >> the revenue generated by the program. >> it is 4% revenue. >> thank you for that. >> director. >> just something you noted in your presentation, and i am not sure i understood this correctly. you mentioned if there is a change of use, so under the

planning code, if there is a shoe store and a change of use for a restaurant, it is my understanding that is in retail to retail, so that would not trigger the impact fee. is that correct? >> i probably gave you a bad example, that is correct. i think a better thing would be trying to convert to office. office has a higher impact, so there would be a fee differential applied to recognize the difference in

impact. >> any other commissioner questions? do we have to public comment on this item? seeing none, a public comment is closed. commissioners? >> we are trying to anticipate which way this goes. we would like to recommend the threshold remain at 3000 square feet, and since they are switching its from five years, we think it would be prudent to keep a five-year exploration. we would support the update in

fees schedule wil. failing that, if it is going to change to something smaller, we would like to enter into the record what we would like to pass on to the supervisors, so i will just read it away we would like it to be presented. it would states should the board of supervisors not accept the recommendation, we recommend a policy credits be implemented in line with the proposed transit sustainability feet triggered this would be available to businesses that occupy or expand existing commercial space, provided the space is no

greater than 5000 square feet, and the business is not formula of retail. >> i would like to add a bit more to this area of policy credit. i would prefer to see the size and reduced and a good back at 3000 square feet, because i am concerned about the credits being on of first serve basis, would create uncertainty, so i would prefer to see it pulled back, rather than the policy credit.

bifid sounds like the first recommendation to the board of supervisors would be to maintain 3000 square feet, and if the board of supervisors will not consider that, then to put in the policy credit that is part of the tsp. but i just think it would be good to add for the policy credits to express our concerns about a first-come first-served basis. and we would like to enter that as the reason we would strongly prefer the first option. >> that is a very strong reason. >> that will be a comment that

will go along with the motion. >> your motion was regarding both the 3000 square feet and the previous use credit. is that what we have written down? >> yes. >> we have of motion. do we have a second? roll call trigger. [roll call] >> next item please.

discussion to make recommendations to the board of supervisors, administrative code establishing a task force. in your binder is the ordinance text along with the ordinance. >> thank you so much. i am a legislative aide for david campos. the legislation before you today is almost a follow-up to legislation we passed last year this commission supported i believe unanimously that gave the office increased powers to tackle the epidemic of wage theft, and this legislation

really takes it a step further by providing other city departments with powers and responsibility to address wage have to bring them together with businesses that followed the loss of well as advocates and attorneys to strategize and figure out how to take up the challenge of attempting to rid the city of san francisco's wage haft, and for those -- wage theft, and for those of the city and familiar, i want to tell you what it is. wage destheft is any violation f wage laws.

common forms include non payment of overtime, not paying minimum wage or not paying workers at all, not providing tip credit laws or any laws said regulate wages and hours in the workplace. goowage theft is incredibly comn in low-wage industries. often when immigrants are involved, it is a greater problem. good the studies that have been done recently in san francisco that mirror national studies showed that in the chinatown restaurant industry, about 50% of the workers and have been surveyed by the authors of the

study, they found 50% of workers they interviewed have not been paid minimum wage. there is another study performed by ucla and the university of chicago on day laborers. goothat study found they had experienced wage utheft, so it s a national problem costing billions of dollars per year, so we are lucky we are usually on the cutting edge of tackling this problem, and we want to continue. your the purpose of this task force is to bring all the actors involved and have an interest in

seeing wage theft and disappear together to talk about coordinating their work so they can hopefully get around this problem. the task force is on page 4 and page 5. the city agencies huddle to appoint representatives include the task force, the police department of public health, the treasurer's office, and the gooi know your schedule is so b, so if you do not have the time you can appoint someone from your office to join the task force. good from the community signed there will be four seats from

organizations or organizations who work specifically on tackling wage theft. there will be one seat for a labor union representative. the standards are undermined when competitors that are not unionized undercut them by unfairly competing against individuals, so labor does have an interest in this subject area. there are three seats for businesses that help certify they follow the law to join the task force and worked with the community to deal with this issue, and we would appreciate

if you have any recommendations from businesses but would be available to join the task force to regain -- to join the task force. but i would love to hear from you. and we are working on industries where wage theft is a problem. this would include a laborer, construction, and really any industry where immigrant workers tend to be predominant during your legislation was considered last week at the board of supervisors and passed unanimously. it is for the board tomorrow for the second vote, and the final product of the task force is on page 6. we are asking the task force to develop recommendations to the

board of supervisors about any legislation needed to address wage theft, and the research or data needed to better to tackle the issue, and finally, any additional resources the partners would need to be able to engage in new and innovative work in the area. i am available to take any questions, and we appreciate your support. >> you will note in your packet because of the timing of the schedule and based upon the way the commission has made its recommendation to the previous legislation, we wrote a recommendation for approval for the ordinance so there would be representation from the office in time for the hearing at the board of supervisors.

we decided even though this is moved through the board of supervisors, but to put it before the commission it is good for the commission to be on record supporting the task force. >> any other commissioners? >> i want to say this is a thin piece of legislation, and a task force, -- this is a good piece of legislation and getting everyone on the table, whatever happens in san francisco happens in california and the rest of the nation, so we are pioneers. public comment on item number six. seeing none, public comment is closed. item #seven. friday we should move -- i think we should move that legislation.

>> second. roll call please. back to that motion to recommend approval. commissioner adams? [calling votes] commissioners, the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> thank you. next item, number eight, a presentation on the bus rapid transit by members of the transportation agency. this is a discussion item. good >> good evening, i am here

to give a quick update on the project. i want to start out by acknowledging paul from the transportation agency is here. they are part of the team. we are in the midst of our documentation process, and we have some of coming out reach, so we wanted to give up a brief update on the project in advance of fat out of reach, so i will give more coming out of the end of the presentation. go i believe the commissioners have some knowledge of the project, so i will not dwell on it. i will talk specifically about the work we are doing at the moment, and then i will get to

some information about where we are going from here. this is a very long us corridor -- bus corridor that extends westward through the entire teaty of the geary corridor all the way to the ocean. it is one of the heaviest ones in the city. several sets of us lines serve as a corridor now curator -- service the corridor. the golden gate transit also runs a bus line on geary.

what i am about to tell you is not new, but there are problems with the existing service. it is not as reliable as we would like it to be. goit takes a long time to get a bus, and it can be very creditowded. make transit more reliable on the court or -- corridor. in most cases, the dedicated transit lanes. we reduce the delays that come from people having to step up on to the bus. a couple of other features including some signal priority for the buses themselves. as i mentioned, we're in the

middle of the environmental review process. there are four alternatives. i will go quickly through them. alternative one is there is no project based alternative. we can have dedicated lanes for the buses on the sides on the curb lanes. or three and four in which we run the buses in the center. alternative three being a center alternative that has dual medians and four being one that has a center median. the difference between three and four is which side of the bus you board on. four require stores and the left so you can get on the bus from the median. -- the doors on the left so you can get on the bus from the medium.

others include, there are a number of classes of bus service. we want to keep them all. 38 lead to become -- limited will become the new traffic light. we're keeping -- new services that would stop at not every stop. we're proposing that bus passing lanes be included in our project. we're planning to keep the current bus stops but we may want adjustments to them, small adjustments in location and if we are center running brt -- [unintelligible] we are expecting to look at the -- reducing conflicts with buses and improving conditions with pedestrians and provide reliability for the buses.

and in some locations, on street parking will be affected. we may need to rearrange the angled parking in some locations to parallel parking to fit dedicated bus lanes. we're doing the analysis on how many but we now there may be effective in some locations. i will fargafocus on some areas. we want to understand the alternative. we're looking at the corridor and trying to figure out what our options are before we fully define our alternatives. the western part of the corridor, the big question we are focusing on their at the moment is how far do we need the dedicated bus lanes to run?

we think it is clear we do not need them all the way through to the ocean. at some point, ridership and traffic delays are low and the brt -- buses are not as affected by the traffic. where do we and the dedicated lanes? we have identified two options. at 20 fifth avenue or 33rd ave. there is some questions about which potential transit generators do we want to catch vs. how expensive a project we want to be building here? the idea of ending the lane does not mean weekend bus service. this is a slide that shows an example of a transition where if we have dedicated lanes, this

example shows a center alternative. there would be an intersection where there would be a transition. the buses would have a green light factor ahead of the cars, it would get into and out of the land without conflict. we do have that kind of design in mind. another special note we're thinking about is the intersection of geary and masonic. the street configuration is complex. there are some side lanes that go up and have the intersection with masonic. there are constraints we will need to deal with. how to provide a dedicated bus lane and station in this area. we have done some thinking about it and we have some options to share with the public.

there are some options that include the station and the bus lane, the dedicated bus line on the surface and there are options that put the dedicated bus lane in the part that goes underneath masonic and puts the station near that as well. i will move onto fillmore. fillmore is a similar type of intersection configuration to masonic. geary goes underneath more. three lanes go under and side lines stay on top to have the intersection with ellmore. the options that we're putting on the table i want to share with the public include putting it dedicated lane on the side and having the stations on the side at the service. at fillmore, we